John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 436

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. If the Senator will yield, I just wanted to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Nevada about the staff members on both sides. On something like this, there are a lot of controversial items. I see Senator Nickles still in the Chamber. The staff of the Senator from Oklahoma and all of our staff members--we get credit for a lot of things done around here, but the staffs are the ones who put these things together and spend the long hours back and forth working out all the details. There has not been anything pass through the Senate in some time that required more negotiating back and forth, I think, than we did in this legislation--all done in good faith by staff. We trust them. I am glad the Senator from Nevada chose to honor them. They deserve it.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I, too, share the concerns about regulations that the Senator from Nevada just talked about. We all have heard from our people back home, our constituents, our businessmen, our industry, our farmers, our average citizens about the impact of Federal regulations. How we deal with that is something else again. That is what we are grappling with. We have had a couple things happen here. One, over in the House there is H.R. 450, which we view as rather draconian. It would stop everything from just a few days after the election on for a year, stop all rules and regulations from going into effect. That is draconian in that it throws out the good with the bad. We have a lot of rules. Many of them are final rules and some of them are proposed rules that have taken effect since the election last year. Many had been in preparation for a year, a year and a half, some of them maybe even a little bit longer than that. But the rules on health and safety, for instance, would be thrown out by that House legislation. They would be held up. In other words, the protections against E. coli bacteria, which killed children, or cryptosporidium, which killed 100 people in Wisconsin and some 400,000 ill, were not in effect. Airline safety is another one where we have rules and regulations that would be held up now even though they should be in there. Those are some examples of things that would be held up if we passed that House bill. That is not what we are dealing with today. But the companion bill in the Senate is S. 219, which was introduced by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. S. 219 drew a lot of amendments, a lot of fire in committee, enough so that when it was finally voted out of committee, over our objections on the minority side, this substitute for it was brought forward. This substitute is a legal veto or legal reconsideration which is a long ways from the original S. 219 that it replaces. If we then sent this legislative veto to the conference with approval today, and it is goes to conference with the original bill in the House, H.R. 450, they are poles apart in what they provide; what our concern has been all along is that if we go to conference with the House and then give in to the House, we could come back with something completely unacceptable, and it will not be amendable by our rules for consideration of conference reports. There is another situation we have. In the Governmental Affairs Committee, we already considered and voted out a regulatory reform bill, of which a similar legislative veto like this is a part. I have wished, if things had been different, that we would be working on that bill on the floor instead of on this measure that only encompasses part of the regulatory reform problem. That is not what we are voting on, though, today. I think most of us will probably vote for the legislative veto provision that the Senator from Oklahoma has proposed. We do have some perfecting amendments. Senator Levin, who is not on the floor at the moment but I understand will be here very shortly, has two or three amendments. I have one I may propose later this afternoon. I think there are a couple on the other side of the aisle to be proposed. Regulatory reform is a very, very complex matter. It is not easy. I think we should be taking it up in its entirety and not just piecemeal with things like this where we drag out parts of it for consideration and do not consider the other parts of it. Our regulatory reform that we voted out of committee, for instance, had provisions in it for risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis for rules above $100 million. It had a requirement that all the regulations be reviewed at least once every 10 years. If they were not reviewed, they would be sunset. We had the 45-day legislative veto in that legislation, which this substitute amendment to S. 219 provides, and we had judicial review only on the final rule. That is a good, tough bill. Let me say that Senator Roth, our committee chairman now on the majority side, moved that bill through committee, and I think it is an excellent bill. We supported that bill. We voted it out of committee 15 to 0, our committee membership being a total of 15. All Democrats, all Republicans got together. It is a good, tough, workable regulatory reform bill. I hope that we could consider it shortly. But meanwhile, just a part of that bill--in effect, the 45-day legislative veto--is what we are considering now as a substitute for S. 219. Yesterday we held the floor for several hours talking about our concerns and what could happen under the original moratorium bill, which is H.R. 450, or the S. 219 as voted on the floor. What we are doing today is substituting this legislative veto for S. 219. I have gone through this a couple of times because it is a little bit complex, and in talking to some of our Members, they do not understand exactly where we stand with regard to the legislative veto or the moratorium bill. So the legislative veto substitute, in effect, replaces the Senate version of the moratorium bill, S. 219. So the examples I gave on the floor for a couple of hours yesterday were things that would occur if we went to conference and came back basically with the House bill, which we think goes way, way, way too far. So I think Senator Levin will be on the floor shortly with some amendments to be proposed first, and then I hope we can move along and complete action on this bill today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to clarify a couple of things. We have been through this. I think it is satisfactory. I want to be sure the definition that was made in the committee on the previous amendment was something that could not be expanded into things never intended as far as the hunting and routine rules and regulations and others that are done on an annual basis. I think this just changes the definition of what is considered a significant rule. In effect, what it does by changing the designation a little bit, as I understand it, is permit all the previous rules, regulations, and procedures to continue as they have in the past so they will not be cut out. Is that correct?

Mr. GLENN. As I understood it from the explanation given earlier this afternoon, I understood that this does not provide any new exemptions for additional hunting or additional opening up of tracts or anything that is not there right now.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GLENN. I certainly have no objection to that because that provides regulations in the same way it has been done for a long time. It does not really provide any new escape hatch for anybody, as I understand it. So I think that would be acceptable on our side.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the Governmental Affairs Committee's unanimous bipartisan regulatory reform bill has a legislative veto of major rules in it. Major rules. I believe this is a good proposal, because there are anywhere from between 700 to 900, some estimates have gone as high as 1,000, ``major'' or ``significant'' rules issued each year. And that word ``significant'' means something special, because these are the rules that have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million per year or more, or otherwise have a significant impact on the economy or a region of the country, or other important effect. These 700 to 900 major rules or regulations are the big rules out of the approximately 4,000 rules that are issued every year--4,000. One estimate today when we were discussing another bill was that these rules in some years run as high as 4,800 to 5,000. Let us say an average of 4,000 rules are issued each year by Federal agencies. A legislative veto, where we call rules back up or have the potential for calling them back up for review, for all 4,000 rules, I think, is just too much. What kind of regulatory overload are we putting on the Congress? Will we be so overloaded in these rules that we will not be able to adequately consider ones that we should consider? It is the major rules that we care about, the ones that are significant. These are the big rules that implement the primary policies and requirements of our laws on public health and safety, on environmental protection, economic policy, communications, farm policy, and all the rest. We have a hard enough time getting our work done the way things are. I do not think we should create an almost automatic process to bring up every rule under the Sun. Let me give some examples. Just from yesterday's Federal Register, I see rules on drawbridge closings, rules on safety zones in New Jersey's Metedeconk River, Federal prison work compensation program rules, Justice Department claims settlement rules, FAA--the Federal Aviation Administration--class D airspace rules. And I would say from some personal experience, FAA just a short time ago redid all the airspace designations, A, B, C, D, and F, right on down the line, to show what areas planes can fly into and out of without radios, being on instrument control, visual flight rules, and so on. These kind of rules are still being flushed out and changed a bit. So one of the things in the Federal Register is for class D airspace rules. There is the postsecondary education ``borrower defenses'' regulations. Let us not forget that the reason we have agencies and an open ``notice and comment'' administrative process is so that Government can get its work done in a fair and orderly and semiefficient process. At least, that is the goal. We need regulatory reform. And I am first to support regulatory reform. We worked on it for several years in the Governmental Affairs Committee. So we know we need regulatory reform, and I am all for it. I have been saying that for some time. But we do not need to create more gridlock by trying to run, or have the potential of running, 4,000 rules through Congress each year. That is a bottleneck that we just do not need. We are trying to make Government work better, not grind to a complete halt. So I think we need to keep the legislative veto focused on the big rules that really matter, that really mean something, ones that we should be addressing. The amendment I was going to submit limits the legislative veto to significant rules--just significant rules, fit the definition that I gave a moment ago. Again, this matches the scope of the provision we passed in the Governmental Affairs Committee by a vote of 15 to 0--eight Republicans and seven Democrats. The amendment that I was planning to submit would make the following changes to the Nickles-Reid substitute: One, the amendment would insert the word ``significant'' into the substitute at three places--in sections 3(a)(1)(A), 3(b), and 3(d)(1). With this change, the congressional hold-over and process covers ``significant rules'' instead of all ``rules.'' No. 2, the amendment would have stricken one subsection, section 3(a)(3). This would have deleted the paragraph relating to effective date for other rules which refers to the submission of nonsignificant rules to Congress for review. Again, the single purpose of this amendment would have been making the legislative veto process apply to significant rules. This is what the Governmental Affairs Committee supports unanimously, and I think it makes good sense. The alternative, congressional review of potentially all 4,000 rules issued each year, makes little sense to me at all. Mr. President, I will not submit this amendment. I did want to address it, but I will not submit it because I know from discussions with the floor leaders that we are not going to get this adopted. The votes are there to defeat this. So I would rather not have a vote on it now. I think the best thing to do is not submit it, but talk a little bit about it and let people know how important I think it is and, hopefully, out of the conference process with the House, we might be able to address this problem. But let me just say a couple more things. Four thousand rules could be sent to Congress and parceled out to appropriate committees--just think of that--4,000 rules. That would be the potential. I am not saying all 4,000 rules are going to be called up every time. But let me say this: For each rule, you sure are going to have some lobbyists out there interested in that rule. We are going to have lobbyists coming out of the woodwork to lobby one or more Members to move a resolution of disapproval through the appropriate committee. That can be done through committee. So these lobbyists would be trying to get Members to move that resolution of disapproval. If the committee does not act within 20 days, the lobbyists will work to get 30 Members to sign a petition of discharge or will pressure the majority and minority leaders to discharge the committee. So the lobbyists and special interests will have special ways of doing this, first with committee members. If that does not work, then they will try for the majority or minority leaders, or within 20 days they can do the 30-Members approach of signing a petition to have that particular rule brought up for reconsideration. If the committee reports out a resolution of disapproval or the committee is discharged, the disapproval of the rule will be the subject of lobbying by those parties affected. All this could happen; the potential is there for it to happen up to 4,000 times a year. If we think the demands for lobby reform have been great before, you just wait until the public sees the lobbying feeding frenzy, like piranhas, looking at this legislation, and the potential for redoing legislation that they may have just lost a point on in the recent past when the original legislation was passed. So that kind of a lobbying feeding frenzy could take place after we provide expedited procedures for congressional review of all these rules. That might just be for starters. Consider what will happen if we pass a controversial bill that produces significant political argument. All these things are not bound up just in money. Significant rules can have a basis other than money. Think of this one: We pass a controversial bill that produces significant political argument--let us take a hot button item like abortion. We know what happens every time that issue comes up in the Congress. When we have to debate abortion legislation, every regulation, every rule, no matter how minor, will have a whole string of Senators and lobbyists and outside groups who will want to bring that regulation back to the floor, not necessarily because they think the regulation does not reflect congressional intent--it may be perfect and may have passed with a majority and have expressed congressional intent perfectly. Because what they want under our expedited procedures is to spend 10 hours in political and ideological argument, regardless of the original bill that might have just passed. So we are opening all of that up. I had hoped to close some of that up by designating just the significant rules for reconsideration. When we open up this additional time under our expedited procedures to spend extra hours, the 10 hours in political or ideological argument, about something that just passed--and I used the example of abortion because we all know how impassioned the pleas get around here and how emotional that issue is, think of what happens if we pass something in that regard and we are out here with the agencies doing rules and regulations to back up what the Congress just passed. Then we find that once the rules and regulations are written, do we think that the lobbying groups will not immediately come back up and do everything they possibly can do to get that back on the floor again for additional discussion? You can bet they will. Is that what we want? Do we want to provide a forum for continually revisiting issues that have been settled by a vote because a vocal and determined minority will now have the review of regulation by Congress as a convenient trigger for such debate? Well, I know when to put amendments in, I hope, and I know when the amendments are not worthy to be put in because they are just going to be voted down. I think the second is the situation I find myself in right now. I think this would be better legislation if we had in there the amendment I was going to propose. But since we will not have it in there, I just want everyone to know that I will be voting for the legislative veto, but with my fingers crossed that we do not wind up creating a real gridlock in legislative reconsideration of legislation just passed for which the rules and regulations are being written. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, we have been through the details of this. I think it is justified. We would be glad to accept it on this side.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Michigan for his work on this. He has worked long and hard on rules and regulations in the Governmental Affairs Committee. This is one example of how thorough he is in these areas. Even though we can pass laws--we can pass rules and regulations-- there are coincidences that apply in particular cases or places, or things are found to be unfair with the local people. And, where that can be corrected, it should be corrected. This provides for that kind of a correction where otherwise people would be dealt with very unfairly by their government. We are trying to make this as fair as possible for everybody. That is what the Senator from Michigan is doing. I compliment him and am glad to cosponsor his amendment.

Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GLENN. I agree with my colleague. That clarifies it and makes sure what we are not expecting from the GAO is their own complete risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis as original work. That would overburden them on the 800 or 900 significant regulations that are issued each year and leaves it open that once one of these regulations or rules is reported back, if a committee wishes to get into it more, then they can. Or they could possibly even ask for a complete GAO original study as we do now of different pieces of legislation. That would still be possible. But this limits it to the GAO reviewing whether the agency has complied with procedural steps required in law. I am glad to have that clarified. With that understanding I believe we would be happy to accept this on our side.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I appreciate very much the comments of my colleague from New Mexico. I know he has considered this very carefully. As to his initial comments about the bill and the need for it, the need for regulatory reform, I could not agree more. I think we are long overdue in addressing this issue. We have dealt with regulatory reform in the Governmental Affairs Committee. In fact, we have voted out a bill. Let me compliment my chairman, Senator Bill Roth, on this. We have voted a bill out that does all of the things that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico just enumerated. The regulatory reform bill that we voted out requires risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. Cost-benefit analysis now, under current law, is done by Executive order. But under the regulatory reform bill, we would lock that in and say that all major regulations have to have a risk assessment and cost- benefit analysis done. And then in that legislation we voted out, also, we required that there be a review of those regulations not less than once every 10 years. In other words, there is a sunset provision in there that says that no matter how good the regulations are, they should be looked at for adequacy and for improvement and for sunsetting at least once every 10 years. ` Now, in that legislation we also have a 45-day legislative veto, which is about the same as what we have here. That legislative veto would apply to all significant rules. Once it is modified, the committee could call it up the same as this legislation now. We also provided that when a final rule is written, we would allow judicial review. That is not the legislation that is before Congress today. That is the regulatory reform bill we voted out, and I think that is the one we should be considering because it includes not only the 45-day legislative veto that we are talking about here today as a substitute for S. 219, but it would add the whole package of regulatory reform-- risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis--not just by Executive order of the President, as it is now, but require it in law. We would also require a review of all major rules on a 10-year basis; we would have a 45-day legislative veto similar to the one we have here; and we would provide for judicial review on the final rule. That is a complete package and one I hope we have up very shortly. Now, specifically, as to the comments of the Senator from New Mexico on the GAO, I agree on the excellence of GAO's capability and the excellent work that they do. They are an ideal group to look at these matters. My only concern is whether we might be overloading GAO. When we are talking about requiring GAO to do a complete analytical analysis of everything that comes up, that is one thing. If we are requiring them to make sure that the procedures required by law have been met by each agency and department in putting their risk assessment or cost-benefit together, if it is a procedural analysis to make sure everything is done, that is quite a different thing. GAO is ideally situated to do the second of those, to make sure that all the boxes have been checked, to make sure that all the procedures have been followed. If we are to ask GAO to do their own complete risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, completely separate from any that the agencies have done, that is something else entirely, of course. I point out that just the significant rules number some 800 or 900 a year; some years, probably 1,000. With the average number of work days a year here being somewhere between 250 and 270, that means that GAO would have to crank out about three to four of enormous job. To require GAO to do these new tasks when there have been proposals in the budget to cut GAO by 25 percent does not make much sense. But I agree that this is a good thing for GAO to be looking at. They are ideally situated to do it. In the other bill, the regulatory reform bill that we have voted out of committee, there are provisions for peer review for cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments. We did that because we thought the job was going to be sufficiently large that we would not be able to just ask GAO or someone else to do all that analytical and assessment work. Yet, we wanted somebody to say that the agencies and departments were doing a reasonable job. So we set up a peer review process. I am sure when that legislation comes to the floor, we will be debating that provision to see its adequacy compared to just having GAO do it. So there are two different procedures here that we are looking at. On the regulatory reform bill that I hope we consider within the next month or so, we provided for peer review as a way of doing the same thing that the Senator from New Mexico is talking about doing with GAO. I certainly do not object to the GAO proposal so long as we understand, when the Senator proposes it, that it will be on the basis of making sure that the processes have all been gone through that are requested. That would be what GAO would be certifying. GAO would not be required to do their own complete, independent, cost analysis, cost- benefit ratio and risk assessment, as a completely independent action, which would tie up several times the number of people we have in GAO. I think that is what the Senator from New Mexico intended that it be--a review to make sure that all the proper procedures have been gone through. I know he has not formally submitted the amendment yet, but I made those comments on it anyway, in advance. I wanted to point out the details of the regulatory reform bill that I hope we have on the floor within the next 30 or 45 days. It would require risk assessment/cost-benefit not just by Executive order, but in law. No future President could just take that off, out of effect, by just taking out the Executive order. These would be required by law, risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. Each one of those regulations would be reviewed on not less than a 10-year basis or it would sunset. We have the same 45-day legislative veto that would be in this legislation here now. All significant rules would come back to the committee and they would be asked to see whether they want to be notified for judicial review on each rule. That is a complete regulatory reform package. We did a lot of work for which Senator Roth deserves a lot of credit. We stuck with this complete reform package and molded it. It was a bipartisan effort. We voted it out, on a unanimous basis, of the Governmental Affairs Committee, 15 to 0. I think it is a very powerful, tough bill. I hope we consider it, because what we are considering today is just part of that bill. It is a separate 45-day legislative veto. I look forward to having that bill out on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I wanted to clarify a couple of matters here. We have in the reporting by the Comptroller General, as I understand it--we say he will-- . . . provide a report on each significant rule to the committees of jurisdiction to each House of Congress by the end of 12 calendar days after the submission or publication date as provided in section 4(b)(2). The report of the Comptroller General shall include an assessment of the agency's compliance with procedural steps required with subsection (A)(iv) through (vii). I think those words were added. I presume they were. I just wanted to check and make sure that is the wording that was in the legislation?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I fully support the amendment by the Senator from Michigan. I think it does several things. It protects the rights of the minority. It provides a dual method of getting rules and regulations considered. It can be initiated not only by the majority and minority leaders, but also by a petition of 30 Members. And this does something else. It means that we will not just have frivolous actions brought up. If you have to get 30 Members of the Senate of the United States to agree on anything on a petition, it is going to be something significant; it is not going to be a frivolous matter. You are not going to be able to get a couple of friends and be able to call a rule up, or get a buddy-buddy vote out of somebody and call a rule up on that basis. When you have to get 30 Members to do it, it has to be something substantive, and I agree with that. That is why I am very glad to support the proposal by the Senator from Michigan. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we could go on for a number of hours here reading all of these things, but I think I have made my point. I hope today we could agree that a straight moratorium, as proposed by S. 219, which is the bill we are debating here today--the substitute has not been laid down yet, and H.R. 450, its companion piece over in the House--is indeed ill thought out, ill considered, and bad for America and the American people, American business and industry. In what time I have remaining I would like to just read a short table of contents of different regulations. Some of these have several regulations that would be held up if we passed this moratorium legislation. All of these have some beneficial effect on the American public, or in particular businesses or industries. Table of Contents i. public health and safety (1) Towing Vessels Safety Regulations. (2) Commuter Airline Safety Standards. (3) Head Impact Protection. (4) Cleanup of Nuclear Facilities. (5) Prevention of Oil Spills. (6) Environmental Review in Public Housing. (7) Recovery of License Fees. (8) Meat and Poultry Inspection. (9) Alcoholic Beverage Labeling. (10) Improved Poultry Inspection. (11) Protection of Florida Keys. (12) Pesticide Regulation Flexibility. (13) Waste Management. (14) Safety Zones for America's Cup. (15) Airline Crew Assignments. (16) Flight Attendant Duty Period Limitations and Rest Requirements. (18) Disease-Free Food. (19) Security of Sensitive Information in Aviation. (20) Bike Helmet Safety Standards. (21) Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture. (22) Radioactive Material Reporting. (23) Child-Resistant Packaging. (24) Lead-Free Cans. (25) Nuclear Power Plant Safety. (26) Approval of State Air Quality Plans. (27) Reducing Toxic Air Emissions. (28) Safe Drinking Water at Lower Cost. (29) Lead Poisoning Prevention. (30) Cleanup at Uranium Processing Sites. ii. worker safety (1) Logging Safety. (2) Ventilation in Underground Coal Mines. (3) Safe Practices for Diesel Equipment in Underground Coal Mines. (4) Child Labor. (5) Reducing Exposure to Tuberculosis in the Workplace. (6) Worker Exposure to Cancer Causing Agent. (7) Worker Exposure to Reproductive and Developmental Risks. iii. economic growth and opportunity (1) Small Business Development Center Program. (2) Streamlining Loan Procedures for Small Business. (3) Lower Electric Rates. (4) Expanded Markets for American Farmers: (a) Sheep and Lamb Producers; (b) Fruit, Vegetable, and Dairy Producers. (5) Lower Costs for American Cotton Producers. (6) Reducing FHA Fund Losses. (7) Energy Efficient Applicances. (8) Utility Rate Recovery. (9) Education Funding Flexibility. (10) Drawbridge Regulations. (11) Missing Pension Beneficiaries. (12) Indian Self Determination and Self Governance. (13) Forestry Regulations. (14) Landowner Relief Under Spotted Owl Regulation. (15) Cruise Ship Access to Glacier Bay, Alaska. (16) Alternative Fuel Providers. (17) Extension of Port Limits, Hawaii. (18) Recordkeeping by Casinos. (19) Cable Rate Restructuring. (20) Radio Frequency Allocation. (21) Mobile Radios. (22) Video Dialtone. iv. government reform (1) Public Financing for Presidential Candidates. (2) Political Campaigns Disclaimers. (3) Efficient Clearance of Federal Checks. (4) Government Securities Large Position Reporting Requirements. (5) Capital Sufficiency. (6) Government Securities--Risk Assessment. (7) Environmental Information ``One Stop Shopping.'' (8) Housing Reforms. v. help for families and the middle class (1) Student Loan Borrower Harassment Defenses. (2) Caller ID. (3) Mortgage Lending for Moderate Income Individuals. (4) Foreclosure Alternatives. (5) Increasing Home Ownership Opportunities for First Time Buyers. (6) Pell Grant Availability. (7) Avoiding Homeowner Foreclosure. Mr. President, I read all these to show the diverse nature of what we are dealing with here. This is not some little minor matter. It affects all businesses and industries. A moratorium would affect health and safety for this country and all of our people. I go on at this length today talking about these things because H.R. 450 has already passed over in the House. When we go to conference, we will be dealing with all these things I mentioned today and more. We have not even listed all the impacts of what this moratorium would do. I realize tomorrow we will have the Nickles-Reid substitute for this, which provides for legislative veto. I have favored legislative veto. But I do not want to see it combined in conference with some of the things I have mentioned here today, which go too far and which I think never should have been proposed to begin with. Our status on regulatory reform is this: We have passed regulatory reform out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. It is a good bill. Senator Roth deserves a lot of credit for bringing that bill to the floor and making it a good, tough, solid bill. We should not be just picking little bits and pieces, such as a legislative veto, out of that bill. Those are parts of that bigger bill, and it is voted out now. It will be ready for floor action shortly. I see no reason why we should be picking out pieces of it for separate legislation unless the intent is to go to conference with the House and come back with something that goes part way toward what the House has done with H.R. 450 and which has been proposed here in the Senate with S. 219. The President last September issued a directive to all Government agencies and departments to go through all rules and regulations and come up with a sweeping proposal for correcting the problems we have with the rules and regulations in effect now--all of them. That will be with us on the 1st of June. They have committed to having makes little sense to me. We will have the President's proposals before us on the 1st of June, which is just about 30 working days from now if you take out the Easter break period. We will be able to take up those considerations along with regulatory reform and not even try to do something where we go to conference with the House on their moratorium bill. I may have more to say on this subject tomorrow. We will be looking forward to the proposal I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma is going to make tomorrow. But I hope we could get ahead with regulatory reform on a broad front and not just on this narrow issue of legislative veto. If we make it something that has to be conferenced with the House, as I see it, we can only lose. If we go over to the House with this and we say it is this or nothing, the House is liable to not agree with that. I do not know where we go from there with compromise, which is usually the way we get by our conferences. So, Mr. President, we will have more to say on this tomorrow, I am sure. I have asked for extensive things to be put in the Record today, I realize. But I think it is so important because, as the minority leader said a little while ago here on the floor, the moratorium is dead. If it is not, it should be. We want to make sure that it is. As for the legislative veto, we may be able to vote on that tomorrow. I do not know. If we can say the moratorium is dead and regulatory or legislative veto is what we are really going to stick with, and we are not going to come back with something that accommodates the House, then I think legislative veto may be the way we all want to go. We might even get a unanimous vote tomorrow. I do not know. I thank the Chair. I look forward to more debate on this subject tomorrow. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GLENN. Now, as far as the regulatory agencies--EPA and NRC--are concerned, they still will play the key role in improving the existing radiation protection framework. As part of the administration's plan, EPA and NRC will expand the scope of the present interagency steering committee on radiation cleanup standards to address other radiation issues identified by the GAO, including acceptable radiation risk to the public, the establishment of consistent risk assessment and management approaches, and completeness and uniformity in radiation standard, and public education on radiation safety. Mr. President, the decision to expand the scope of this interagency steering committee was made because it had been successful in addressing one of the primary problems identified by GAO, inconsistencies in how different agencies approach radiation protection. This steering committee effectively coordinated EPA's proposed radiation cleanup standards with NRC's proposed decontamination and decommissioning standards. As a result, these two major regulatory actions reflect the same risk and protection levels-- something that has been notably absent from previous efforts. Now Mr. President, some people may argue that the proposed EPA and NRC standards go too far, or not far enough. In fact, I have some concerns that these standards may not be enough to protect the public. However, through this interagency steering committee, any changes that might be made to the rules, based on public and scientific input, will be reflected in both rules. At long last we will begin to move away from the illogical situation that has existed for some time which has led to different levels of protection based solely on the agency that is doing the regulating. Let me make clear, this interagency committee will have the authority to examine the current radiation regulatory framework, recommend ways that it can be improved--including consolidating or eliminating duplicative standards--and then implement their recommendations. Where legislative action may be needed, I am prepared to assist the committee's effort. Mr. President, I would note that the proposed moratorium would sabotage the progress that has recently been made to coordinate these standards, resulting in delayed cleanup and increased costs. Mr. President, a number of other rules concerning nuclear safety and public exposure to radiation will be delayed as a result of this moratorium. Let me list these for the information of my colleagues. Epidemiology and Other Health Studies Financial Assistance Program [10 CFR 602, Final Rule Published Jan. 31, 1995, DOE]. This rule establishes open and competitive procedures for providing financial assistance relating to health studies. These health studies support the Department of Energy's mission to protect the health of DOE and contractor workers, as well as residents living near DOE facilities. Standards for Nuclear Waste Disposal--primarily for Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico--proposed January 31, 1995, EPA. This proposed rule sets standards for transuranic waste disposal, low levels of plutonium among other radionuclides. This guidance has already been delayed for many years and is critical to solving the nuclear waste disposal problem. Cleanup at Uranium Processing Sites, EPA. This new final rule, issued on January 11, 1995, sets out cost-effective standards for preventing and cleaning up ground water contamination at inactive uranium processing sites. This rule replaces a restrictive and costly interim standard. Cleanup of NRC-licensed facilities, NRC. This proposed rule provides cleanup criteria for the decontamination and decommissioning of NRC- licensed sites. These criteria include the cleanup and release of these facilities for unrestricted and restricted use. These standards are the ones I referred to earlier which have been developed in coordination with EPA's general standards for radioactive cleanup. Rulemaking expected by June 30, 1995. Nuclear Safety Management [10 CFR Part 830, DOE]. This action establishes requirements for DOE contractors and subcontractors for ensuring nuclear safety at DOE facilities. These requirements stem from the Department's ongoing effort to strengthen the protection of health, safety, and the environment from the radiological and Mr. President, a moratorium on this last rulemaking would result in delays to long-sought efforts to bring DOE's nuclear facilities closer to commercial standards as far as safety is concerned. To conclude, I strongly support regulatory reform, and good sense efforts to improve the current system. The unfortunate fact, which the proponents of the moratorium do not seem to fully grasp, is that to improve a regulatory system you must first understand what it is you are trying to fix. A meat ax isn't the way to solve the problem; better to use a scalpel to save this patient. As I have outlined here today, a responsible regulatory reform effort for radiation issues is currently underway. The proposed moratorium would delay this effort for no good reason. I urge my colleague to oppose this moratorium. I would summarize by saying a moratorium would bring all of this rulemaking to a stop, and the American people would not get the protection they deserve. And that is what we are debating today. This goes on to describe some of our efforts on the committee to get that as an exception while the bill was in committee, and we failed. It was a party line vote on E. coli. If there is ever an imminent threat to health and safety, that would be it. During the committee markup, I submitted an amendment to exempt regulatory actions that would reduce pathogens in meat and poultry. That amendment was rejected. I would like to discuss this important rule to show that the moratorium is indeed both dangerous and arbitrary. This amendment I offered would address rules to update inspection techniques for meat and poultry and would provide a safeguard against E. coli and other contamination. Mr. Mueller, whose 13-year-old son died from E. coli-contaminated hamburger, testified before the committee on February 22. He stated: I am here to tell you about the dire consequences that would result in enactment of this moratorium. In the fall of 1993, my thirteen year old son died from eating a cheeseburger. A new meat inspection rule which would have prevented his death would be stopped by this legislation. In January, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a proposed hazardous analysis critical control point [HACCP] regulation to improve meat and poultry inspection. This rule would mandate rigorous sanitation requirements and scientific testing for bacteria in meat and poultry processing. Under HACCP, workers regularly monitory hazards in a production system on the basis of risk. They identify risks, they monitor the controls, and they sample end products periodically to check the HACCP process. Under HACCP, emphasis is placed on the process rather than the end product. Instead of monitoring every carcass for a defect, plant employees will regulatory monitor the processing of carcasses: the temperature of storage areas, the cleanliness of the equipment, or the consistency of carcass washes or other solutions used. The employees will keep records of their observations. Samples of end products will be tested to make sure that the process is working properly and the Government will review company HACCP records. HACCP has been endorsed by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the General Accounting Office, the National Food Processors Association, the National Broiler Council, the American Meat Institute, and the Safe Food Coalition. Ten years ago, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the USDA adopt HACCP for meat and poultry inspections. Industry petitioned USDA to mandate the program. Now the implementation of HACCP is threatened by this moratorium. The meat and poultry inspection laws were written in 1906. Federal inspectors are limited to touching, smelling, and visually inspecting carcasses to determine whether they are fit for consumption. We all know that inspectors are not going to find harmful bacteria like E. coli without microscopes and sampling. Clearly, this inspection program should be updated. As you know, the moratorium bill allows for the President to exempt imminent threats to health and safety. The majority in our committee argued that E. coli and other contaminants in meat and poultry would be an imminent threat to health and safety. We simply do not agree. The meat inspection rules are not emergency rules designed to address an immediately pressing event or disaster. They have been under development for several years now. Therefore, I and others strongly believed that we should specifically exempt these inspection rules from the moratorium. We cannot afford to pass a law that would end up with more needless deaths. While we do need to reform our regulatory process, we must not give up our responsibility to protect the public health and safety. As Mr. Mueller stated in his testimony before our committee, ``My son paid the ultimate price for eating one of his favorite foods.'' We have the ability to prevent this from happening again, and we should--by opposing the moratorium all together. Mr. President, I addressed very briefly a moment ago the subject of airline safety. I will make a few more comments about that. The lack of thought that went into the moratorium is seen in many ways. Once example is the effort it took to ensure protections for airline safety. In the House, the supporters of the moratorium resisted all arguments for an exemption for airline safety--in committee and on the floor, where they defeated an amendment that contained an exemption for aircraft safety. At the last minute, however, on the floor, the managers of the bill finally realized what a terrible idea it was, so they accepted an exemption. In the Senate, the moratorium also contained no exemption for airline safety. Even after the bill was redrafted for our committee markup, the supporters did not think it important enough to protect the traveling public from unsafe aircraft equipment and operations. Finally, in markup, I offered amendments that the majority could not reject. We exempted: FAA airworthiness directives--these are rules that govern aircraft safety, such as standards for aircraft engines, wing flap repairs, landing gear brakes, et cetera; and Commuter airline safety standards--these rules would upgrade standards for commuter airlines to those of major airlines. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter I received from the Airline Pilots Association describing the urgent need for the commuter airline rules. Commuter carriers, which operate aircraft with fewer than 30 seats, represent one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. airline market and often dominate airline service to many medium-sized cities and rural areas. This set of rules would require pilots on small commuter aircraft to go through the same training as pilots of the large carriers. The rules will also increase crew flight and rest requirements. These rules were issued on Friday as proposed rules, and the new rules are supported by both the Regional Airline Association and the Air Line Pilots Association. The proposed rules will be available for public comment for 90 days. I am sure that some will find provisions to object to, and I am sure that the FAA will make changes. Given the projected cost of these rules--over $275 million--I am also confident that OMB will use its Executive order powers to ensure that the rules are supported by a cost benefit analysis. This is how the process should work--rules to protect the public from harm or to serve some other purpose are proposed, made available for comment, analyzed, reviewed and discussed. This is government working. I believe the regulatory process needs reform. I've said that many times now. But, these air safety rules just prove my point about the moratorium. Does the American public want Government shut down, while some in Congress talk about reform, or do they want Government to try to make good decisions and protect them from harm, while we do our job of reform? That is the issue. Let us work together to reform the regulatory process--which is what we have been doing in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Let us not waste time fighting Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from the Airline Pilots Association describing the urgent need for these commuter airline rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would note that a regulatory moratorium does none of these things. A regulatory moratorium doesn't ask for a plan. It doesn't provide for careful analysis of the existing regulatory framework. A regulatory moratorium is a blind and ignorant attempt to address complex issues. In late January and February of this year, I received the responses from NRC, EPA, and OSTP. As a result of my efforts the current Federal radiation protection framework is being restructured. The previous coordinating body, the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination is being disbanded. While CIRRPC has had some success in addressing some issues, it was widely viewed as being ineffective. In its place, the National Science and Technology Council, chaired by Dr. Gibbons, has formed a subcommittee to coordinate interagency radiation research activities. This move will more effectively integrate radiation research into the rest of the Federal R&D effort. I ask unanimous consent to have printed letters concerning this.